Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Are you not looking forward to cheaper high-fructose corn syrup and aerosol cheese?
The whole point about 'taking back sovereignty' is that we can decide what we want to put in our bodies, rather than have someone else take away our options.
If you are too stupid to make you own decisions on these matters, don't assume everyone else it.
It will be a relief finally to get rid of the Brie Enforcement Agency once we leave the EU.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Mr. D, interesting. I had 'sir' in my Explorations story, but the editor (changing to American English, alas) changed it to 'Sir'.
I don't think 'sir' should generally be capitalised. The only capitals I can think of that would be used in vocative way as a matter of course would refer to royalty (perhaps high ranking clergy). Could be wrong, of course.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
If I were Chief Whip, there are ~25 Tory MPs I'd keep an eye on:
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
If I were Chief Whip, there are ~25 Tory MPs I'd keep an eye on:
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
You should then cross-check how many of those have ever rebelled. Some never have.
@isam You've just done me a favour. I checked my Coral account to find I had some money languishing there I'd forgotten about (betting on there not being two elections in 2015).
...It is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period.
No-one mentions our WTO schedule. These are our tariff and other commitments to WTO members. The Foreign Office explains in a very bland blog that it hopes to keep them as similar as possible to the EU ones. The schedule has to be agreed by all the other members. It's by no means assured they will agree. Since Britain NEEDS a schedule, while theirs is in place, they may make take advantage to drive a harder bargain. In any case the British schedule can only be approximately similar to the EU one. Countries will complain about any additional tariffs compared with the EU trading regime. Maybe it was part of a PTA with the EU. Under WTO's Most Favoured Nation rules, the UK would then have to offer the lower tariff to everyone.
How would all this shake out? No-one knows. If Britain imposes any tariffs that are not part of the agreed schedule, it risks being sued. Companies trading on those tariffs could see unexpected costs imposed on them. Perhaps the UK could keep going on the EU schedule for a while after 2019 but that presumably requires EU consent. Which it may give. These negotiations have a big implication for the EU as well, particularly for agriculture.
Or the UK could eliminate all tariffs, as some propose anyway. Implications: it would be the final nail in the coffin for our steel business as we would not be able to prevent Chinese steel being dumped at any price. It would devastate our farming economy as farmers see much more competition and much lower prices. Donald Trump would get most of what he wants without signing a PTA with us. What else would we have to offer? It would see a trade diversion from the EU to the US, which we may be OK with. Nevertheless there are good reasons for keeping good relations with the EU. In any case they have several important vetoes. South Korea would be able to export cars and other machinery to the UK free of tariffs and therefore have a smaller incentive to allow the UK to export pharmaceuticals tariff free, especially if China can now export cars at a 0% tariff. Which in turn would be a reason for UK pharma companies to move to the EU where they can.
Preferential Trade Agreements have to be agreed with the WTO and they need to demonstrate compliance with WTO rules, go further than your schedule, comprehensively deal with all aspects of trade between countries and be and once and for all. Partial and temporary agreements aren't allowed. I can't see PTAs that we set up would be authorised until the UK has sorted its WTO schedule.
If I were Chief Whip, there are ~25 Tory MPs I'd keep an eye on:
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
Johnny Mercer is a weird one. He undertook an exercise to ask his constituents what position he should take on the Referendum. Then, when they said Leave - he ignored them and went Remain. A bold move when you have a tiny majority.
I do hope he doesn't have one of those George Osborne job IOU's in his wallet.....
If I were Chief Whip, there are ~25 Tory MPs I'd keep an eye on:
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
I'd add Maria Miller to that list.
But, I wonder how many of them want to die in the ditch for the EU. Add back in the DUP and Labour Leavers, and the government can probably rely on 323 or so MPs. That leaves 321 potential opponents, but I think many of the latter will be pretty half-hearted.
The government asked me if we should remain part of the EU or leave. I chose leave. As a good manager, I have now delegated the execution of this trifling task to Mrs May and her numberless minions. I'm sure there are any number of vexing questions that require answers, but that's why God invented subordinates.
If I were Chief Whip, there are ~25 Tory MPs I'd keep an eye on:
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
Damien Green has been all over the news making clear he will do nothing to hinder Brexit and agrees with Mays position.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
I don't see why US negotiations ("informal", of course) can't proceed in tandem.
They can be formalised within 12 months of us formally leaving the EU. When they take effect may be linked to the transitional deal with the EU, or may not.
A Trump aide said that a US/Uk trade deal could be signed within six months of the UK leaving the EU.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
On the issue of haste this is a rare occasion when I agree with you.
Great typo!!
I corrected it quickly. U too close to I on a phone keypad.
In the US, there have 3813 gun related incidents and 992 fatalities in 2017.
It is January.
Source?
Yes, today seems to be a day not to be bothering with actual citations. Alistair has started a trend it seems.
Anyway, The Google tells us that this "statistic" comes from something called the "Gun Violence Archive". With a name like that you're guaranteed fake numbers and an agenda.
No-one mentions our WTO schedule. These are our tariff and other commitments to WTO members. The Foreign Office explains in a very bland blog that it hopes to keep them as similar as possible to the EU ones.
I think this is the real issue, and it's interesting that Trump is already floating WTO rules with his executive order on the pipeline using US steel.
If we're relying on US diplomatic pressure to force countries not to blackmail us over our WTO schedule we couldn't have chosen a worse time.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
I have eaten American chicken and survived! Great swathes of British agriculture will be destroyed but not because of chlorine and genetic modification. Removal of tariff quotas are a lot less sexy, but that's what will do for them. On the other hand our meat will be cheaper.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even moroth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
I don't see why US negotiations ("informal", of course) can't proceed in tandem.
They can be formalised within 12 months of us formally leaving the EU. When they take effect may be linked to the transitional deal with the EU, or may not.
A Trump aide said that a US/Uk trade deal could be signed within six months of the UK leaving the EU.
a) I'll bet he did; and b) would that be leaving the EU as in two years after A50 is triggered, or leaving the EU following the transitional period following the two years after A50 is triggered?
@isam You've just done me a favour. I checked my Coral account to find I had some money languishing there I'd forgotten about (betting on there not being two elections in 2015).
a) I'll bet he did; and b) would that be leaving the EU as in two years after A50 is triggered, or leaving the EU following the transitional period following the two years after A50 is triggered?
Can anyone conceive of a transitional period which isn't simply an extension of EU membership? Anything else would create a precedent for the kind of model the EU has been resolute in opposing so far.
If I were Chief Whip, there are ~25 Tory MPs I'd keep an eye on:
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
You should then cross-check how many of those have ever rebelled. Some never have.
Yes. I would expect Osborne to largely keep his powder dry.
In the worst scenario, I get 293 Tory MPs for Theresa, plus Carswell, plus DUP + 1 x UUP and 6 Labour Leavers, or 309 votes minimum.
So an opposing coalition would need to mobilise 310 MPs or more voting to actively defeat her (not abstaining) and that'd need to be 3 x PC, 3 SDLP, 1 x Green, all 56 SNP (including those suspended), all 9 x LDs, the other UUP, *all* other Labour MPs plus a dozen Tory rebels.
That's on hand-tying amendments re: the negotiation, and navigating those will be a battle of attrition and organisation more than raw arithmetic.
She will otherwise only suffer clear defeats where she proposes something obviously Henry VIII, excessive or overbearing because I'd expect some Tory Leavers to baulk at that too.
Or the UK could eliminate all tariffs, as some propose anyway. Implications: it would be the final nail in the coffin for our steel business as we would not be able to prevent Chinese steel being dumped at any price.
Why would doing away with tariffs prevent us from anti-dumping measures? Dumping has to do with pricing, not tariffs.
a) I'll bet he did; and b) would that be leaving the EU as in two years after A50 is triggered, or leaving the EU following the transitional period following the two years after A50 is triggered?
Can anyone conceive of a transitional period which isn't simply an extension of EU membership? Anything else would create a precedent for the kind of model the EU has been resolute in opposing so far.
Well exactly. Otherwise there would be regulatory tariff arbitrage by anyone we signed a deal with.
Or the UK could eliminate all tariffs, as some propose anyway. Implications: it would be the final nail in the coffin for our steel business as we would not be able to prevent Chinese steel being dumped at any price.
Why would doing away with tariffs prevent us from anti-dumping measures? Dumping has to do with pricing, not tariffs.
Maybe not, as you suggest. Anti-dumping measures are normally effected through tariffs. Discriminatory tariffs are allowed by the WTO in certain situations where you can prove dumping. What you wouldn't be able to do is apply non-discriminatory tariffs without proving dumping to the WTO. In the first case, China would sue us at the WTO and we would have to defend the case; in the second they wouldn't have a case as long as it's an allowable tariff and we didn't discriminate.
Mr. Topping, isn't the New Zealand experience of low/no-tariff agriculture quite otherwise [ie flourishing]?
Up to a point. It is not as flourishing as much as it was before, but equally they worked through the issues. There's a good case to be made for low or no tariffs.
The UK and NZ situations are not very similar however. Firstly, the UK government will probably keep subsidies, unlike the NZ one. The issue is tariffs and import quotas. As an agricultural exporter, this is much less important for New Zealand.
Comments
I'm remarkably similar to OGH
I don't think 'sir' should generally be capitalised. The only capitals I can think of that would be used in vocative way as a matter of course would refer to royalty (perhaps high ranking clergy). Could be wrong, of course.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/stoke-on-trent-central-by-election/winning-party
Usain Bolt has been stripped of one of his gold medals after a team mate tested positive for drugs
Heidi Allen, Alastair Burt, Nick Boles, Robert Buckland, Steve Brine, Nic Soames, Ken Clarke (write-off), Alberto Costa, Neil Carmichael, Nick Herbert, Ben Howlett, Dominic Grieve, Simon Kirby, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Caroline Spelman, George Osborne, Ben Wallace, Jane Ellison, Bob Neill, Clare Perry, Johnny Mercer, Tania Mathias and Sarah Wollaston.
I would add David Mundell, Damian Green and David Lidington, but they're in Government.
There is talk of between 20-40 in a Tory pro-EU bloc, but I expect it's pretty much those 25 (tops) plus a few more who are sympathetic and wanted to Remain but now who won't go against the party whip, or Government line.
How would all this shake out? No-one knows. If Britain imposes any tariffs that are not part of the agreed schedule, it risks being sued. Companies trading on those tariffs could see unexpected costs imposed on them. Perhaps the UK could keep going on the EU schedule for a while after 2019 but that presumably requires EU consent. Which it may give. These negotiations have a big implication for the EU as well, particularly for agriculture.
Or the UK could eliminate all tariffs, as some propose anyway. Implications: it would be the final nail in the coffin for our steel business as we would not be able to prevent Chinese steel being dumped at any price. It would devastate our farming economy as farmers see much more competition and much lower prices. Donald Trump would get most of what he wants without signing a PTA with us. What else would we have to offer? It would see a trade diversion from the EU to the US, which we may be OK with. Nevertheless there are good reasons for keeping good relations with the EU. In any case they have several important vetoes. South Korea would be able to export cars and other machinery to the UK free of tariffs and therefore have a smaller incentive to allow the UK to export pharmaceuticals tariff free, especially if China can now export cars at a 0% tariff. Which in turn would be a reason for UK pharma companies to move to the EU where they can.
Preferential Trade Agreements have to be agreed with the WTO and they need to demonstrate compliance with WTO rules, go further than your schedule, comprehensively deal with all aspects of trade between countries and be and once and for all. Partial and temporary agreements aren't allowed. I can't see PTAs that we set up would be authorised until the UK has sorted its WTO schedule.
I do hope he doesn't have one of those George Osborne job IOU's in his wallet.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html?_r=0
But, I wonder how many of them want to die in the ditch for the EU. Add back in the DUP and Labour Leavers, and the government can probably rely on 323 or so MPs. That leaves 321 potential opponents, but I think many of the latter will be pretty half-hearted.
Wake me when we've left. Anyone for tennis?
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/824266851370864640
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4128536/Trump-aide-says-UK-trade-deal-ready-months.html
If we're relying on US diplomatic pressure to force countries not to blackmail us over our WTO schedule we couldn't have chosen a worse time.
b) would that be leaving the EU as in two years after A50 is triggered, or leaving the EU following the transitional period following the two years after A50 is triggered?
In the worst scenario, I get 293 Tory MPs for Theresa, plus Carswell, plus DUP + 1 x UUP and 6 Labour Leavers, or 309 votes minimum.
So an opposing coalition would need to mobilise 310 MPs or more voting to actively defeat her (not abstaining) and that'd need to be 3 x PC, 3 SDLP, 1 x Green, all 56 SNP (including those suspended), all 9 x LDs, the other UUP, *all* other Labour MPs plus a dozen Tory rebels.
That's on hand-tying amendments re: the negotiation, and navigating those will be a battle of attrition and organisation more than raw arithmetic.
She will otherwise only suffer clear defeats where she proposes something obviously Henry VIII, excessive or overbearing because I'd expect some Tory Leavers to baulk at that too.
The UK and NZ situations are not very similar however. Firstly, the UK government will probably keep subsidies, unlike the NZ one. The issue is tariffs and import quotas. As an agricultural exporter, this is much less important for New Zealand.